User talk:Sphilbrick

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #204

Thank you for your input

Thank you very much for your input. I was trying to write an Article about a surgery and I needed a link to different types of bone grafts. Thanks again. Your pal - BennyK95 - Talk 20:12, October 7 2009(UTC)

Please consider signing this proposal

Hi SPhilbrick, a number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and they are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. I've reviewed their proposal and have decided to lend my support and signed my signature. Can you please review their proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Talkback Isolde2000

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Isolde2000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice cookies!

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_January_21#Government_Rose_Garden.2C_Ooty.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CSD Talkback - Ezhuks

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Ezhuks's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the heads up.

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Golgofrinchian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Howard M. Guttman

Dear Sphilbrick:

Several months ago, you were very helpful to me when I was trying to create an article for Howard Guttman. A few weeks ago, the article was declared an orphan. I have been trying to de-orphan it, and have some good ideas, but have run into difficulties.

I went into an article on Frances Hesselbein because Howard Guttman contributed a chapter to a book edited by Frances, and it is listed in her article. I listed Howard and all the others authors who contributed chapters, some of whom are very well known in the field of management development. First, I tried to highlight Howard's name and create a link to his page. I got a message saying that the page doesn't exist. I then highlighted the names of several other notable authors, including Jim Champy (James A. Champy), Noel Tichy, and Dave Ulrich. In each case, I was told that the wiki page did not exist, although I had just visited it and copied the URL. I would like to create links from this list not only to Howard's Wiki page, but to these others.

Am I doing something wrong? Can you help?

Thank you very much, Dale Dalecorey (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will look into it shortly.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you did wrong. I just successfully wikilinked Howard M. Guttman. I'll do one more, and try to describe exactly what I did. Perhaps you could try again, and tell me exactly what you did, and between us, we can figure out what you did wrong.--SPhilbrickT 16:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wikilinked Noel M. Tichy. Steps

1. Click on the edit button next to the section,
2. Highlight the name with the mouse
3. click on the Wiklink icon in the editing toolbar(if you have one, if not see below)
4. add an edit summary e.g. "wikilink"
5. Click on preview button to make sure it looks OK
6. Click on Save page button.

You might not have the editing toolbar. If so:

1. Click on the edit button next to the section,
2. add left square brackets [[ before the name
3. add right square brackets ]] after the name
4. add an edit summary e.g. "wikilink"
5. Click on preview button to make sure it looks OK
6. Click on Save page button.

Dear SPhilbrick: You are the best! Thank you so much for creating the links. I reviewed your directions, and successfully created a link to the page of another chapter writer in the Hesselbein article, Edgar Shein. I did have the toolbar, but I was clicking on the icon of a chain, then inserting the URL of the Wiki page there. I didn't know you could just type the word wikilink into the edit summary. I'm learning slowly! Thanks again, Dale 66.82.9.54 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - building 7 deletion

I've responded to your message on my talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#My_preliminary_observation_on_the_911_conspiracy_issue Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replied again on my talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replied again. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a message

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rollback Right For User:Stickulus

On the page that you can see if you qualify for rollback rights it says you can ask an administrator for these rights. Thats why I came to you. I know you from working on a few articles together and I know you can help me with whatever I need to qualify for rollback rights. A little about myslef is that I have been using Wikipedia actively for quite a long time, a good 4 years. I just made this account recently since I did not want my IP address to be shown publicly and I wanted to be able to work on more Wikipedia pages rather than those I was limited to without an account. I have only deleted a few vandalisations I plan on removing many more in the future. One thing that would for sure help me would be Rollback Rights. With Rollback Rights I Could Remove Vandalism from articles with ease and get far more done in a day rather than having to do it manually. I hope you can hep me with this and Thank You!

Yes, I have the authority, but granting rights is not an area where I've specialized. There are some rough guidelines, I don't know if they are written, but you can infer them by looking at the recent requests for rollback in Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions. Note that most who received it had a 1000 or more edits. Note Qantasplanes did not get it, with 650 edits. The key is not so much the raw edit count, but the number of vandalism edits.

It is good form, when doing any edit, to use an edit summary. If you ever decide to try for admin, this is something people will look at. Anything less than 100% for major edits is cause for questions. You are at 12%. You should start by making you use an edit summary for every edit. (I help make sure this happens by going to user preferences, editing, and clicking the box that warns me if I forget to enter an edit summary). When you are using edit summaries regularly, make sure your vandalism edits either have the word "vandalism" in them, or use "rv" for revert vandalism. Then it will be easy to see how often you are reverting vandalism. I looked at your edits, and didn't see any marked at vandalism. I'm not saying there aren't any, just that it isn't easy to find them.

If you look at the list of people who asked for rollback, you'll see that the most common reason for turning it down is not much evidence of reverting vandalism. That's all it is good for, but it is easy to revert vandalism without, it so I'll give you the same advice that has been given others. Do 50-100 reversions of vandalism, make sure they are valid, make sure the edit summary indicates it is vandalism, and ask again.

By the way, do you see the note on your user page talking about vandalism? It is in a box, and floats off the page because you started it with a space. Remove the space, and it will look better.

Good luck and keep editing.--SPhilbrickT 12:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tips, I will be sure to take them all into consideration and I will begin devandalising pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickulus (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Stabile

Hi, I think the page was previously deleted can you check? It could fall into G4? I checked the history of the article the first edit here was copyed from the other website here, then the bot tagged it he re-edited to change some of the article. Could this article fall into the recently created articles for speedy deletion A10? --Vic49 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted before, but by Prod, not AfD nor CSD, so I don't think G4 applies. There is. You mentioned a10, but that would apply if there is another existing article covering the same subject, which doesn't seem to apply. I'm going to follow up with a note to JamesBWatson, who deleted the earlier version. I have to go on a business trip, so may not be able to follow up promptly.--SPhilbrickT 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually CSD G4 applies only to pages deleted as a result of deletion discussions, and excludes previous speedy deletions, as well as PRODs. (That is irrelevant in this case, but I thought it worth clarifying to avoid future mistakes.) The fact that it may well have been copied back to Wikipedia from another site which copied the Wikipedia article is of no importance: what matters is that it is a repost of a Wikipedia article which was deleted by PROD. It seems to me that the person who reposted it has in effect belatedly challenged the PROD, which they have every right to do. There is the question of attribution of contributions, which can be dealt with easily by restoring the deleted history of the article, which I shall do. That will leave the question of whether the reasons given for deletion in the PROD are valid. Either the editor who placed the original PROD or anyone else can take the article to AfD if they think those reasons are valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point that G4 doesn't apply to prior CSD. I know it didn't apply to prior Prod's and did to AfD, but didn't think through CSD. It's mostly a moot point, clearly in this case, but in general, if an article was properly deleted via CSD, the original reason still applies, and there's no reason to use G4.

Sounds like we are in the "right" position G12 isn't appropriate, and someone can AfD is they so choose.--SPhilbrickT 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

StickerYou

Not sure why our page was deleted. A previous "deletion" tag was refuted and no consensus was reached to allow deletion of the page. Not sure why, just a few days later, my page was deleted. Stickers fan (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason it was proposed for speedy deletion is that it appeared to be a blatant advertisement, rather than a proper encyclopedic article. I agreed with the assessment so deleted it. I just took a look again, to see if I was too hasty, and I still feel it qualifies for deletion.

If you would like more information,let me know; I'll start by pointing out that it had no qualifying references. (A reference to the company website is acceptable in some cases, but does not "count" in terms of establishing notability.)--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So, what can I change so that the page no longer seems like advertisement, and does meet the qualifications to establish notability and be considered a valid page? Stickers fan (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Notability, you'll see one of the keys is to find references satisfying the following (see the link for more details):

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

--SPhilbrickT 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

re Theatre Bizarre

Thanks for your comments and decision. I am just getting started on new page patrolling. Greenmaven (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Help With An Article

Hello My Name Is Stickulus. I Would Greatly Appreciate it if you would glance at and maybe even give me a couple of pointers or help me on an article I am Making. I Believe I Am about 3/4 done. you can see the article at User:Stickulus/Diandra Luker —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

I can't at the moment, but I can find some time later in the day. I'll fix the broken reference. In the meantime, think about Wikipedia:Notability.--SPhilbrickT 12:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Midtown Village

There are articles about malls and shopping centers all over Wikipedia. What's unnotable about this one? --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have it backwards. What is notable about this one? If you can point out another article about another nondescript mall that isn't notable, propose it for deletion.--SPhilbrickT 20:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a very brief review to see some examples of Malls that are in Wikipedia. As you may know, their existence isn't a valid reason to keep Midtown Village, but it is a starting point for comparison.

The first one I found (by searching for the word Mall" is Queen Street Mall. It has 26 million visitors a year, and the article has a number of references (not enough, IMO), one of which is clearly a reliable source. I think this one could use some help from an editor, there should be more references.

The second one is Northgate Mall (Seattle). I see eleven references, and a bibliography with over 15 items listed. This one earned a tag noting it needs more references.

In contrast, MidTown Village consisted of three sentences, no assertions of notability and zero references.--SPhilbrickT 20:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It might have had all the things you were looking for if you hadn't deleted it two hours after I started the stub. I guess we'll never know now. --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want it in your user space, where you can work on it without attracting the deletionists, let me know, although I moved a dozen such articles in the last few days and most have not bothered to improve them. I'm an optimist, though, if you're the exception, let me know.--SPhilbrickT 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. -Ttownfeen (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Ttownfeen/Midtown Village --SPhilbrickT 22:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad G8 of a non-trivial talk page of a merged and redirected article

Hi Sphilbrick. Coming here from an MfD. A deletion of yours has been mentioned, Talk:Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954, "23:48, 18 June 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)"

I don't believe that G8 applies to a page redirected somewhere, and further, deletion is inappropriate where there is a history behind the redirect (it was merged), and especially where the edit to redirect is justified with reference to the talk page "18:46, 20 May 2011 Farpointer (talk | contribs) (27 bytes) (This was supposed to be merged back on April 22, according to the long discussion on the Horror comics Talk Page. Don't know why no one has done it until now, so I'm volunteering to do it, according to the agreement on the Talk page.)"[1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrickT 12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

St Andrew's

Thank you! Amandajm (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello Sphilbrick, I just wanted to let you know that, per this request, I've just userfied This Week in Tennis, because I think it's an article that might have potential; however, I've informed the author that he should contact you before moving the page back. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Hope it happens. I've userfied several articles in the last week, not one has yet had any meaningful progress, so while I support the approach, it has been disappointing in terms of results.--SPhilbrickT 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Capucho

Hi there SPHIL, VASCO from Portugal,

thank you for your help regarding this page move, i think it's more accurate (your summary was 100% what i would have written). However, given that "CAPUCHO" is a term that can lead to other interpretations (monkey, friar), could you reinstate to the original "Capucho (footballer)"? If not, it's cool too.

Keep up the good work, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrickT 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsk tsk

[2] Thanks for chipping in, anyway :) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to show that you weren't the only one thinking it was rude - however, I think I know you well enough that you aren't losing sleep over it, so I'm not planning to extend the drama - however, I'll note that saying something appear rude to me is not something that can be argued with - it may not appear rude to you someone else, but unless I'm blatantly lying, if I say something sounds rude to me, it sounds rude to me.--SPhilbrickT 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well quite. If I could be bothered, the response to that IP would be, "So how come you were able to say authoritiatively above that it wasn't rude if it's just a matter of opinion?" but that would be a desperately boring road to go down :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 22:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Great info, Sphilbrick

In reference to the Don Brown wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Don_Brown_(Author)&action=edit&redlink=1)that you flagged for speedy deletion, the opening paragraph is the author's public bio, which can be found here: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Authors/Author.htm?ContributorID=BrownDon&QueryStringSite=Zondervan. Should I have simply noted that the bio could be found at that external link instead of including the copy on the page? And, if the offer still stands, I would love help in creating wikilinks for the professional life section. Many thanks. 1zigmont! (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You call it a "public" bio, but it is still under copyright.

(As an aside, the article was flagged because of the wording on this site which means either Harper Collins or Zondervan has violated the other entities copyright, or one has done a poor job of reporting permission. However, that doesn't concern us.)

Generally speaking, material in a Wikipedia article should be written "from scratch" not copied from anyplace else; certainly not from material under copyright, but typically not even if the material is freely licensed. Why? Because the material was written for a particular audience, and not usually an encyclopedia. The style and format is unlikely to match that appropriate for an encyclopedia. (There are some rare exceptions, which I won’t go into unless you want more information, but they don't apply to this situation.)

A a minor point, when you add a note to a talk page, it should go at the bottom. Just click on the "new section" and it will that automatically (unless you are adding to an existing section.)--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to User:1zigmont!/Don Brown (Author) and started cleaning it up.--SPhilbrickT 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ourinternet

Hello,

Can you please let me know why my newly created page devoted to Our Internet has been deleted the second time? It was first deleted, but then restored by Athaenara yesterday after our communication. I thought this is good addition to a Web hosting section. And all of the pages there contained very similar information. I'm planning to add more content to it with the time passing.

Thanks,

204.62.13.4 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it right now.--SPhilbrickT 11:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the page again. In my opinion the original deletion was correct, and I don't see it as a particular close call. I read the response of Athaenara, which did not go into detail about the reason for restoration; I read it more as a - hey I'll give you a chance to work on it" more than "oops, I was wrong". However, that's my interpretation, and I've asked Athaenara if she would like to elaborate.

I'm willing to restore the page to user space, where you can work on the shortcomings. If you are willing to do that, I'll work on the restoration and provide some feedback/. If you think it is ready as is, it wouldn't make sense to do so.--SPhilbrickT 12:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Kindly restore the page then in the user space so as I can work on the shortcomings before it goes live. You opinion on them are also very welcome!

Bdgls (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Will follow up with comments on your talk page--SPhilbrickT 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Will be looking forward for your feedback then as I'm new to Wikipedia and it's still hard for me to meet all the criterea...

Bdgls (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick, did you have a chance to look through our talk at my user:talk page? Thanks,

Bdgls (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted an article I was working on.

Hi, at 15:28, 23 June 2011, you deleted the article "List of Ruby learning resources". I see you do a lot of deletions, but I believe that there are specific reasons why the Ruby resources should be listed, somehow. Some other editors on the Ruby also think so, but they present these resources directly from the Ruby in a biased fashion. What are the options to solve this situation? (Btw. your deletion just interrupted my work on a better version.) Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it, as it squarely met the criteria. Wikipedia generally takes a dim view of link farms. That said, there is some value in providing a list of resources (although whether it fits squarely within the goals of Wikipedia isn't perfectly clear to me.)

Keeping in mind that while Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping, one option is to look to see if lists of resources are available in other instances. For example, i think it would be equally of value to provide a list of resources for R or SAS. So is that done? If so how?

I don't know about SAS or R. I'm not gonna claim that Ruby is more important or anything. It changes a lot in a nasty fashion, that's all. That's the one real reason why the proposed list should exist.

One option might be to create the list as a standalone web page, which might be viewed as an acceptable link within the article Ruby (but I'd advise getting consensus before going to that effort, in case it isn't acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for politeness. What I aimed for was a 'pro reviewed, less biased, up-to-date' page. Only WP can ensure that. Second choice is Rubydoc. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A list of resources seems more relevant to the person interested in "how to" rather than "tell me about". You might consider that wikihow is a better place for such a list.--SPhilbrickT 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

re: ShopSquad

Sphilbrick, I must not have formatted the references correctly. I put them at the bottom of the page under a "Notes" heading, which is what the instructions I was following had said to do (there are so many dift sets of instructions on here!). Hmmm...looks like I needed to follow the References link you sent? Can I repost? The sources were:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/social-shopping-startup-shopsquad-lands-1-25m-in-funding-from-heavy-hitters/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-20036113-250.html http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/24/shopsquad-launch/ http://www.zippycart.com/ecommerce-news/2215-shopsquad-matches-shoppers-with-experts.html http://www.pitchengine.com/shopsquad/shopsquad-raises-125-million-in-angel-funding-/134241/

and a couple others.

AZ123 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)AZ123

Article is now at User:AZ123/ShopSquad I'll fix a couple of the references, see if you can use what I did, along with the page I linked to see how to fix the others. More would be helpful, it is still very marginal.--SPhilbrickT 20:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Regarding a new page

Hey there Sphilbrick, My recent contributions have been in actors (mainly broadway) who are also musicians. My next project I chose to work on is for Broadway star Malea McGuinness, but I just noticed there there has already been a page by that name which you deleted in the past, though I'm not sure when. Could you give me some pointers on why that page was deleted? I'd like to make sure I do it right. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntergs (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy the entire text of the article:

Malea McGuinness is a singer songwriter who owns her own record label.

There were also some embedded links, presumably to some of her work, but the decision about importance is based upon the main text.

It can happen (relatively rarely) that an article is deleted and will get deleted automatically if recreated. That isn't the case here.

If you create an article looking exactly like the above, it will go, but if you make a proper article, the prior history should not be an issue.--SPhilbrickT 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

K_G_Suresh

Hi, I noticed that the IP Editor of this article un-did your revisions, so I reverted them. They've now reverted me again and so I'm unsure how to proceed. Clearly they are not reading the edit summaries and therefore not discussing on the talk page. I'll put a note on their talk page pointing them directly at the discussion. Regards CaptRik (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Notified at User_talk:122.160.70.87#Please_stop_reverting_K_G_Suresh. CaptRik (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The IP is the subject of the article; but as a new editor, may not even know how to check messages. Still, it is proper to send the messages.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sphilbrick

Thank you for reviewing the article I created and thanks for assisting me in the editing and etc! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyneon_(musician) Jamesallen2 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help.--SPhilbrickT 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Combining references

Thanks for your assistance. -- And Rew 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in the middle of posting an oops. Sorry.--SPhilbrickT 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So many colors

I do see plenty of inconsistensies, but I'm not skilled enough to know what the correct values for each color are, so generally I fix vandalism and insert missing symbols to make the table look at least halfway decent :). — Glenn L (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure whether you arrived as a color expert or a table expert )--SPhilbrickT 17:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Flight .XXX

I removed the copied material, replacing it with my own phrasing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Very easy to do when the infobox, etc, doesn't change. No worries. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

WUWA (Wroclaw)

Hi Sphilbrick. Last week with my colleagues we wrote few articles about 16 most important places in our town - Wroclaw. One of them was WUWA, which is a 80 years old exhibition, the symbol of 1930 architecture. You can also find an article about in on polish wikipedia: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUWA

Could you please restore the article?

Mateusz kus (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done It is now at User:Mateusz kus/WUWA (Wroclaw), where you can work on it to make it acceptable for the main page.

The main thing needed is a reference to a reliable source, which will help assert the notability.

You should also add captions to the images.--SPhilbrickT 11:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Wunder order: thanks, and a question

Thank you for your review of the Isaac Wunder order page. Much appreciated.

On my talk page, where you inform me of your review, you mention some comments by Ukexpat about it. For the life of me, I can't find them! At the risk of asking a question which might earn me a smart and embarrassed self-administered d'oh-style slap to the side of the head, could you point me to where you saw them? I can't find them on the article's talk page or my talk page, nor on the Request for Feedback pages (I don't think those are used for replies, but I'm too new to this to be sure). I wouldn't expect them to be on his talk page, but I checked there anyway, and they aren't. (He did make some comments on the Eric O'Neill article I'm aware of, but I'm presuming you're referring to the Isaac Wunder order one.) Thanks. Rhsimard (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it took me a couple minutes to find them, and I'm supposed to know what I'm doing. I responded at your talk page, and copied the comments there.--SPhilbrickT 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your help with Agee article

Sphilbrick, I am very encouraged. Thank you! Delighted to work with you on the Mary Cunningham Agee article. To be truthful, I had to look up "hagiographic." I am fascinated that this is the theme you picked up on. It would not be NPOV to write that many people from little folks to international leaders consider Ms. Agee to be a living saint - even though it happens to be true. Her work, who she really is, what gets her up and going every day IS a servant's heart. She met with Mother Teresa in college. She was for all intents and purposes raised by a wonderful priest who founded the first Aquinas House among the Ivy League colleges. She could have easily been a nun. Instead, she went to Wellesley and HBS, worked her tail off, bashed her blonde head through the glass ceiling in the 80's - which was not pleasing to the good old boys network in Detroit - and ended up in all the national papers accused for the oldest crime in history. Silly now. But life was different in the 80's and women in upper management were a threat to the establishment. She landed on her feet after the Bendix media circus, was highly successful with Seagram's and then walked away from it all to found and run an international charity (for 25 years) that has empowered thousands of women when nobody was there for them. She is a women’s activist whose mission is peace. Her message through the years (hands on) has been about healing, compassion, hope, tangible not theoretical help, communicating respectfully, finding a common ground. She is brilliant, articulate, passionate and sacrificial. (Not NPOV, I understand, but true nonetheless.) She has had a private audience with Pope and collaborates with everyone from James Dobson to the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver (founding TNN Board Member) to the late John Cardinal O’Connor to countless University Presidents. So much in the article is understated that it is hard for me to reduce it further and still tell her story. For this reason alone, I look forward to working with you. With your experience and independent insights, we’ll get it right. Count me in. Omnibus170 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are as pleased with me after you see what I have to say:) I was checking into some refernce issues - while it is decidedly not a requirement that references be online, you can understand that it is easier for online readers if such online references exist. In one case, I found an online reference, but there are some technical questions whether it is preferable to use it; that' kind of cryptic, but I'll follow up on that later. I'll work on a list of points I find troubling, and we can try to sort them out.--SPhilbrickT 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ack, forgive me for butting in. You prefer online refs? Yukky. The Internet sucks. It is not peer-reviewed. Anyone can say anything. Give me peer-reviewed journals or books by established editors/publishers every single time. Please think twice before saying that online refs are preferred. Reliability is always and everywhere strongly preferred over convenience.  – Ling.Nut 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You and I aren't communicating so well today are we :) In this case, I think you misunderstood my point, but it obviously wasn't clear, so I welcome the chance to elaborate:

I always want high quality sources, and agree that high quality sources are often not available online. However, given that one has selected a particular source as a citation, it is often the case that the source is available both in printed form and online. When this is the case, I prefer that an online reference be included. Of course, online links can go bad, so the ideal situation is a fully formed citation which can identify the printed version, along with url which may provide quick access. My response was prompted by noting several references without urls, including references to the New York Times, which I would expect to be able to find online.--SPhilbrickT 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have an excuse for my obtuseness.  – Ling.Nut 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh I'd like to join you.--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey

You've got a few messages here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 10.28.2010 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded.--SPhilbrickT 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

over react?

• Hi, are you a WR apologist? Just wanna make our positions clear. I said to WR: take down all private info as soon as it is posted; ban user who posts. You said "Let's not over react". Where is the over reaction in my post?  – Ling.Nut 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a longish thread at Malleus's talk in which we seem to have sorted out several things. Cheers.  – Ling.Nut 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarified, (my error) on your page.--SPhilbrickT 11:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for your guidance at the help page! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Checked

Alright. Thanks, I 'll try to find some info. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My talk

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning removal

You asked me to "ding" you if no substantial action has happened on the Mary Cunningham Agee article. This is a friendly (and urgent) request to please bring your expertise to this article at least to the extent that you feel comfortable removing the warning banner. We can refine this article in the weeks ahead with a little guidance from you ... and input from any who is interested. I would appreciate your offering the leadership that is needed for this article to be acceptable now. From there, we and others can make it even better. Thanks so much.Omnibus170 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? You are quite new, so perhaps you aren't familiar with talk pages? I've done a lot, expected to hear from you but heard nothing. Please go to Talk:Mary Cunningham Agee, where you can see the list of 17 issues that need discussion. I started discussing each of them in tern, expecting you to comment, but I heard nothing. Perhaps you haven't seen them.--SPhilbrickT 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Hi SPhil. You may find this discussion interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out to me, I probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise. BTW, apologies for signing up for the RFA task force and not delivering. I did spend a decent chunk of a day reading over the talk force reports, but to be honest, I was struggling with the organization, and may not have made any comments. However, my main reason for not doing much is my current interest is doing more about the fact that we don't welcome newbies very well. I'm not part of the welcoming committee, but I've been active (on and off) at the Feedback page. I don't know what to do next, but I think it is a higher priority (for me) than RfA reform.) Interestingly, the link you provided fits in well with my area of interest.--SPhilbrickT 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know what it's like having several plates spinning at major policy reforms ;) I knew that RFA reform would be slow, but the main thing is that the project has a structured approach, rather than the bar-room banter that goes on at WT:RfA, partly because it now has a huge base of well researched stats and extrapolations. In fact, in recent weeks WT:RfA has been all but dead, but the problematic issues at RfA still persist and we've just lost another industrious editor who although perhaps still a tad immature for adminship, was an excellent contributor and project manager. Do stay on the RfA task force, and at least chime in when we get to voting on things to propose to the broader community. I've also been working a bit on welcome templates and uw-warnings - if you're interested see this and perhaps you can chime in with some help; the people from that project are not being very forthcoming. They are great at template syntax, but are not experts at the drafting of psychologically apt messages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of "Realms of Trinity"

Hello Sphilbrick. I know i am not the original author of said article. In fact, the original author has resigned. As i am part of the same team i decided to try this a single last time before i seriously start to doubt the wikipedian 'spirit of collaboration': It was/is his/our first article on wikipedia and it is really frustrating to see how an article vanishes within a day without even giving constructive criticism or tips. This is, in my opinion, no way to welcome a new member. After the article got deleted for the first time we tried to add justification to the talk page. Yet it got deleted without as much as a single word why the justification is not valid. I do not have the feeling our arguments were even looked at to begin with, it rather seems that you just flat-out ignored them. That doesn't feel like collaboration to me. Maybe we didn't reason clearly enough before, i will do that now: - Content-wise the article dealt with a game world (persistent world) of the Neverwinter Nights 2 game. It described its history and other relations. If the wording sounded like advertising, we'd gladly accepted feedback and changed it. However, - there are TWO very similar articles that deal with other persistent worlds for exactly the same game, The Known Lands and Dasaria. Both have been in wikipedia for years now. How come they are neither falling under the criteria for speedy deletion nor are in some other way considered to be deleted while Realms of Trinity is deleted faster than anyone could justify/react to it although all of them are basically of the same type? Now i would like to hear, how and why was the article Realms of Trinity so fundamentally different (apart from the wording which we could have changed if we knew how) that it had to be deleted without even a second glance at it?

Makes me think this whole G11 speedy deletion stuff is just a matter of guesswork and personal preference. GB88 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now.--SPhilbrickT 13:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Realms of Trinity. To be blunt, it is an absolute mess. While I understand that new editors find this place confusing, it looks to me like tit was cobbled together by someone who hadn't looked at another article.

One of the notes on the article says, "This layout was adapted from the Nintendo taskforce". On one hand, I very much support the approach of borrowing from existing formats to create an article, but the format was for a Taskforce, not an article. It contained userboxes, which never ever appear in an article. It had a "Special Thanks" section, which never belongs in an article. In short, it looks like it was put together by someone who hadn't looked at another article in Wikipedia, and was just throwing things together. To give an analogy, suppose you wanted to build a car, and rather than build the car from scratch, you decided to go to a junkyard, and assemble a car from parts you found there. So far, not a bad decision. But if you grab a bicycle frame, weld it to a stroller, and put in a bus engine backwards, would you be surprised if someone told you that wasn't a car?

Writing brand-new articles is not easy. Many successful editors on Wikipedia started by making edits to other articles, then learning enough to create an article form scratch. over 99% of editors who attempt to start by creating a new article fail.

Yes, Wikipedia can be a tough place for new editors, and we don't provide as much help as I would like. If you look at the post just above this, you will see that I have identified this as an area of priority for me. We need to do a better job of helping new editors, but that also includes helping them understand that it isn't easy to start form scratch. I have some standard wording I developed, I'll copy it to your talk page. --SPhilbrickT 14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On a more positive note, I looked at The Known Lands (TKL). The referencing is weak, but other than that it looks OK. (I have absolutely no interest in the subject, so I may not be able to look at it critically.) If Realms of Trinity looked something like that, I would not expect it to be deleted speedily. In fact, if you create a version in a user subpage (ask me if you want me to start it for you), and let me know when you think it is ready, I'll support it (which isn't a promise it won't get deleted, but means it won't happen so quickly, and without further comment.) One note on timing, I'm expected to be away form the internet over the next three days, so I may not be able to do something until I return.)--SPhilbrickT 14:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for the response and the feedback. This is something we can work with. Revising the article might take a few days however, as i don't have too much time at the moment. GB88 (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A sunflower

	A sunflower
	A sunflower for you. Thanks for making the time and effort to help. Span (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sphilbrick! Please help me!

My article is being altered by user/editor "MikeWazowski", he is changing everything!! Can you or someone prevent this user from doing this? Thank you so much! Jamesallen2 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it now.--SPhilbrickT 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Help Me, Unfair Banning of User:Stickulus

First of all I want this person to stop deleting this message. I, Stickulus was unfairly banned due to the actions of others. I use a public computer at my colleges library. Apparently other peope at my school use Wikipedia, but not in the right way.I didn't want to make another account so I was hoping if you could unban User:Stickulus instead since he already has a head start at edits, 250+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphartan (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately , I have zero experience in dealing with sockpuppets, real or alleged. A checkuser confirmed it, I am not a checkuser, and frankly, don't know enough about the situation to intrude. If you do not know who to contact, well, neither do I but I can figure it out if you do not know.--SPhilbrickT 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this accurate Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stickulus?--SPhilbrickT 01:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With all due respects to the enquirer, in view of the circumstances I will be asking for a Check user verification of this new account. Quack. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stickulus, Sphartan quacked too loud. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kith Meng

Hi Sphilbrick,

Please, elaborate your point on the photo for Meng's new page

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersgoldpan (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page--SPhilbrickT 11:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Beebuk

Hi! Just found your note. Many thanks for your kind words. It's a relief to know I haven't been (just) a thorn in your side. All your help has been much appreciated. (And better luck with new editors in the future!) --Beebuk 02:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kith Meng & Royal Group: Update 2.0

Hi Sphilbrick Following your feedback and the feedback and assistance of discospinster I sought to simplify & clean the Kith Meng & Royal Group (not live) User:Petersgoldpan/The Royal Group pages. Is this now more appropriate? I cannot live the Royal Group User:Petersgoldpan/The Royal Group page myself

Cheers, Petersgoldpan

Yes, I agree. Kith Meng looks fairly good, but the Royal Group isn't yet ready.--SPhilbrickT 12:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Editing Wave contemporary jewellery

Hi Sphil. Far be it for me to doubt your judgement (we all have different personal criteria), but we just had an edit conflict. I had declined the CSD - and notified the tagger, because I felt there were sufficient claims to notability even if not sourced. Worse is, I left this message on the creator's talk page. What shall we do? Undelete and give it a second chance? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sphil, my bad, I didn't realise that what I was looking at was a recreation of the one you had deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if you and I have different criteria for deleting articles, but I'm also very willing to restore an article if an editor intends to make a good faith attempt to improve it, so I suspect the end results are quite close.

I'm not really following your follow up note. I did delete the article, because I thought it was a complete mess, and very spammy in the version I saw. However, that doesn't mean that an article cannot be written if the subject is notable. I am totally supportive of restoring the page to user space if the editor accepts that it is not close to acceptable as is, and wants to work on it.

However, I see no discussion at the editors talk page. I am slightly concerned about the warning by Abhishek191288. It sounds like the warning one might give if the editor is repeatedly removing CSD templates, but I don't that the editor did that. I wonder if some positive feedback to the editor is in order.--SPhilbrickT 11:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreal Accusation! Leopard Capital

Hi Sphilbrick,

User:Urbanrenewal accused me of being a "sockpuppet" (which I'm not?)...his complaint is filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton My response to him (listed also on User:Urbanrenewal's own page) is below for you to consider - can you please advise how I defend against his accusation? UR doesn't even submit evidence for why he's accused me of being a "sockpuppet" ? double you t f

Response to Urbanrenewal's accusation, start

Hi User:Urbanrenewal,

I joined the Private Equity Task-force to begin a similar history to yourself but concentrating on the ASEAN region and Cambodia in particular, given its increasing popularity and under appreciated status. Towards this end I made the Kith Meng and The Royal Group pages and sought to tidy up numerous others relating to the country's largest business groups, and in doing so I was lead to Leopard Capital, on which I then spent a considerable amount of time, tidying things up and imbuing a more neutral tone whilst removing dead links and/or links leading to the company's website, simultaneously verifying the claims of the entry (and, also removing claims that weren't verifiable). I thought, like helpful administrative User:Discospinster had done previously, I would if anything be thanked for my work? From the perspective of detailing commerce-centric Cambodian based networks, it's fairly practical to overview Cambodia's first and biggest private equity fund -- and no, I'm not connected to Leopard Capital: that is my point -- I'm sure you'd agree. That to claim otherwise (that is that it's not fair practice to overview Cambodia's first and biggest private equity fund, particularly given the country's small-sized population) would risk inhibiting the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias vis-a-vis the already lacklustre coverage of Cambodia's economy, and say be arguably comparable to not mentioning Wall Street when overviewing America's economy, seems reasonably obvious to your truly.

Indeed, Cambodia's business sector is already under-represented on Wikipedia, and I have recently listed it under the 'Expansion Needed' heading on the WikiProject Cambodia page.

Response to Urbanrenewal's accusation, finish

After my amendments, subtractions and additions the Leopard Capital listing (I think) is pretty neutral in tone? Can someone please clarify how this is not the case, citing examples of what they consider more neutral? Since being accused I've checked numerous other Wikipedia's for big private equity firms and, if anything, Leopard Capital seems more neutral and less self-interested than some of the bigger names in the private equity field covered by Wikipedia?

Sphilbrick, please advise how I better defend against User:Urbanrenewal's unfair accusation? He doesn't even mention what his accusation of me is based on? The only semi, potentially plausible suggestion I can think of for accusing me is that I made many numerous amendments: but I'm new and a perfectionist, and actually enjoy the editing process!? Hence my repeated efforts "to get it right" ... I aim to continue contributing to the Wikipedia community and aspire to become a moderator in the future: this, basically, is why I care to have taken off my account URs accusations

Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

Followup on unfairly alleged puppet-ness

Thanks Sphilbrick, much appreciated ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersgoldpan (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Thanks for the note. Take a step back and look at this very niche private equity firm focused on Cambodia Leopard Capital. Amazingly, this small group and its investments have received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia - more than the Blackstone Group, Carlyle, KKR, TPG, etc.. Instead of coming from one account - these edits were spread across multiple accounts that were designed to look like they were acting indpendently. As mentioned in the investigation, the edits were all very similar in style and content (restoring items removed and originally created by another related editor).

I only got involved because the edits were largely promotional, spam focused on companies of questionable notability. I put a few of the most egregious articles through AfD and they were deleted. The sockpuppet was only an issue because of the content being repeatedly added by a determined user with a major conflict of interest.

I would like to assume good faith and did so initially but it is just not believable that these accounts are unrelated. The guy said on my talk page he was "led" to the Leopard Capital article. On his first day of editing - he made a handful of edits before going to Leopard Capital and making dozens of edits. The same style of volumnious incremental edits that the other related accounts had also made. I am going to make a suggestion that this guy focus on something else - if he cannot do anything on wikipedia other than promote this group and its portfolio of investments I am going to go through another sockpuppet investigation. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• In my view, it is pretty obvious that you are simply engaging a new account to do the same things that created the issues several months back. However, I will attempt to assume good faith. I would suggest you first focus on topics unrelated to (i) Leopard Capital, (ii) related personnel, and (iii) related investments and businesses. If, as you suggest, you really have a genuine interest in various topics not based on WP:COI then I will not press this further. However, if you continue to make edits that are substantilly promotional, I am going to press this further. Please be aware that I already watch every one of the articles that have been of interest to this group of accounts. I will also keep track of any new editor that edits these articles. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 03:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

random cookies cuz im bored

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—  Abhishek  ^Talk 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Patulia high school

Restored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--SPhilbrickT 18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

geocoordinates

Thanks. I do my best with some of the historical ones; oftentimes it's a matter of tracking down piddly details spread across multiple pages. For example, with the Mystic Massacre, I tracked down the article about the fort where it occurred. That gave me that it was located atop a hill on the west side of town, so I went into Terrain mode on Google Maps to find the top. I like tricky ones like that. For the haunted museum, I had to spot a shed-sized building using Bing Maps' tilted aerial view.

For rivers, sometimes I'll tag the mouth. Often for linear things you can use where they intersection stuff: where bridges cross rivers, where they cross state lines, where trails start and end, etc.

I don't think there's a specific standard for a lot of the less-common things. It's a judgement call, I guess. I do my best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Restricting Urbanrenewal

Hi User:Sphilbrick

Can you check up on User:Urbanrenewal or talk to see with him what it is that to his mind enables him to draw up a list of subjects on which I cannot contribute? As User:discospinster has mentioned previously, evidence for his accusations of me have been made without him offering evidence and as DS states, I'm not implicated? UR seems very restrictive, as if he's "protecting a patch", but perhaps this goes without saying on Wikipedia, particularly with users like UR who are interested in private equity, who knows? I'm new....Can we at least get UR to state why I am being restricted by him?

Cheers